Talk:Glyphosate

Reference to parkinson disease

Why does the article contains no reference to parkinson disease? It has been notably linked to the subject, even if it might not be a causal relationship: https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/11/17/france-to-continue-compensating-farmers-with-parkinsons-disease-linked-to-glyphosate-use PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have actual published scientific studies showing such a link? Any sources related to medical effects would need to meet WP:MEDRS standards for inclusion. Silverseren^C 22:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have something, doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.006: "Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.".

EFSA didn't find anything either. I think this concern comes mostly from Bastiaan Bloem.--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty out of date in MEDRS terms (2011), but this was published in 2022: doi:10.1007/s00420-022-01878-0 and found the same: The five high-quality studies showed no association between glyphosate use and risk of depression, Parkinson disease, or peripheral nerve conduction velocity. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify: with 'link' I do not mean that the null hypothesis is false. The association has been made in the media at least, and if there are scientific studies that show there is no relationship, I think the proven lack of such relationship is worthy of inclusion. There is probably no health problems with phones (Wireless device radiation and health), but the studies are notable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There have been, over the years, a lot of counter-scientific claims about supposed health harms associated with glyphosate. If we were to include this at all, it would be better to treat it as part of such a group. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion into some counter-scientific section seems fine to me, assuming that is indeed the current scientific consensus (I'm surely no expert here). PhotographyEdits (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

Just noting that there have been some large reinsertions of content lately that were removed for various reasons. On the topic of ghostwriting, many of those same materials were discussed 6 years ago that required significant care, such as at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_14#Media_manipulation. Part of that has to do with how much ghostwriting is invoked in WP:FRINGE circles in this topic and having to navigate that. Anything that would be added on that subject really would need a close look here.

As I looked through the edits, I was finding some WP:MEDRS issues, but also some WP:SYNTH issues along with a WP:POV tone, especially with primary sources to make statements about people that would have WP:BLP concerns too along. There's potentially a lot to unpack in all of those edits, so it's probably best to address them one at a time if any additional discussion is needed. KoA (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Good removal, KoA. If there's any real due weight for any of that, it would really be for the Monsanto article, not this one. Silverseren^C 17:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there—I'm the one behind that edit. I admit I got a little cheeky with the tone, and would happily see the section pared down for that.

As regards WP:BLP concerns: I'd argue that Rowland was a public figure with an impact on global ag policy. All quotes etc. were verifiable, not original research, and as neutral as it's possible to be when the objective facts make one look quite bad. Regardless, I agree that it might be best moved elsewhere; perhaps the controversy around the documents revealed in the cancer litigation deserve their own page.

Regarding the ghostwriting and the problem with WP:FRINGE: Would you have us delete Operation PBSuccess too?

There are fringe theories; there is no such thing as a fringe fact. The deliberate deception around the supposed independence of the safety consensus is a neutral and objective truth with a top-tier, peer-reviewed, secondary source citation. In a page with several thousand words of discussion on the evidence surrounding the safety of this compound, it does not seem undue to have a paragraph or two informing the reader that, while the current scientific consensus is one of safety, an interested party has a clear history of doing unseemly things to manipulate the consensus in that direction.

WhichDoctor (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

PBSuccess is not a fringe theory. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Weak

Hi @Bon courage, I’m curious what you meant by “weak”? The secondary review from a reputable journal should be a WP:MEDRS, if I’m understanding this guideline within the esoteric-to-me medical project correctly. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

See here Bon courage (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I read the source, and I think I can explain further why it was a "weak" source for this purpose (and I agree with the revert). When one gets into the details of what the authors say in the Discussion section of the paper, they explain that the toxic effects were at dosages of glyphosate that were a lot higher than what happens when people or animals get exposed to it in the environment. They say that their findings have implications for setting a correct value for the dosage at which adverse effects can happen, but not in describing the risks of exposure as it occurs in the environment. Consequently, I would worry that it would mislead readers into thinking that the review was about what happens with environmental exposure, when the source actually says something different. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The content of this article is dangerous

I work in the agricultural sector in Southern France. I was at a meeting with some farmers discussing safety when a guy adressed the crowd and literally quoted this article stating that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is less dangerous that table salt.

The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer is blatantly false.

There is a scientific consensus that it has a very low risk for cancer in consumers, but there definitely does not exist such a consensus for agricultural and food processing workers.

Again, I'm not stating that glyphosate is known to be dangerous only that the texts claim of a scientific concensus regarding all humans is false.

That being said, this article is another example of why I quit editing wikis over 10 years ago. The page itself and the talk page are rife with the kind of formulations and slightly off content that comes from well funded malicious actors abusing the good faith editing policies.

I have no hope for this article but I will for my own peace of mind post this talk.

This article is used by active farmers as an excuse not not bother with safety equipment and appropriate practices. Do with that what you want.

37.169.146.59 (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer ← Wait what? This article says that? Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Possible wrong chemical structure

So the 3D Structure seems to be a bit off since there is a hydrogen missing on the hydroxyl group and one too many on the nitrogen. Can anyone double check that? Something seemed off about a single bond on the oxygen but I’m not an organic chemist so I’m posting here instead of just changing it. Toastpaws (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

So here I found the correct one from a reputable source. I’m new to Wikipedia so im hoping to find anyone who’s willing to change it. Just scared to break something.

Source: ACS Toastpaws (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this. I'd like to get more opinions from other editors, but I think that this is a matter of the 3D structure showing the zwitterionic form of the molecule (as it would exist when dissolved in water). So the nitrogen atom has an extra hydrogen on it, making it a positively charged ammonium group, while one of the oxygens in the phosphate group is deprotonated to give a minus charge. Perhaps the image caption should be made clearer, by indicating that the 2D structure is of the uncharged molecule, while the 3D structure is the one with the charges, although this is already pretty strongly implied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, you’re totally correct. It might be a bit misleading there but upon taking another look it sort of is clear enough. Sorry for this false alarm there. Thanks a lot! Toastpaws (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think having a clarification of that nature would be a good idea. Even if implied, explicit notation is better for our readers, who may themselves not know the chemistry involved and wouldn't make the implied inference. Silverseren^C 20:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I just made this edit: [1]. Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Silverseren^C 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. it’s now much clearer that it’s not the same as the skeletal structure. Toastpaws (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Good, thanks. And Toastpaws, welcome to Wikipedia!--Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)